We also saw similar inconsistent behaviors with events on <use>
We found that the behavior of <use> referring to an element which is currently not the part of DOM but added later to DOM via DOM manipulation are handled differently in different browsers.
These seem like good topics for our next conference call.
-----Original Message-----
From: www-svg-request@w3.org [mailto:www-svg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Schiller
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 1:31 PM
To: Boris Zbarsky; www-svg
Subject: Re: removeChild and <use> question
Boris,
Thanks for the explanations.
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:
> On 1/12/10 4:08 PM, Jeff Schiller wrote:
>> would result in someUsePointingToFoo still holding a reference to a
>> <use> Â element, but it is now detached from the DOM
>
> Not at all. Â It's in the DOM just fine. Â However its cloned instance tree is
> now gone. Â It's the same as if you had a <use xlink:href="#foo"> and had no
> node with id="foo" in the document.
>
Ok, I took Patrick's email to mean that the use element itself was
removed from the DOM. This is what I found odd.
Jeff